Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. There was no addendum, but officers suggested an amendment to conditions to require that all windows shown as obscured on the elevation plan be fitted with obscure glazes. It was also proposed that the reference to EV points be removed from Condition 5 as this was already covered sufficiently under Condition 9.

A petition had been received in objection to the application and a written representation had been submitted which was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

?

• Previous similar applications by the same applicant had been rejected multiple times. ?
• The current application prioritised one- and two-bedroom dwellings, not aligning with the Council’s ethos of providing family-sized accommodation. ?
• The property’s roof size was too large compared to the surrounding area and not in keeping with the area’s character and appearance. ?
• Significant negative effects on neighbouring properties were noted, including reduced space, increased noise, and air pollution. ?
• Additional traffic from a hypothetical increase from two to nine households would impact noise, air pollution, and traffic safety on Harefield Road. ?
• The application increased the risk to existing residents and pedestrians from Braybourne Close crossing Harefield Road to go to Hermitage School.
• No consideration had been given to the dangerous junction from Fairfield Road to Harefield Road where cars would be unsighted to vehicles leaving the property.
• The amount of green space would be reduced due to converting garden space to a car park and would not meet the minimum green space per person. ?
• There would be a net reduction in trees, with reliance on trees from adjoining properties for cover. ?
• There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces (12 instead of the recommended 14). ?
• Potential privacy issues from balconies overlooking surrounding properties were noted. ?
• The lead petitioner urged the Council to consider the repeated rejections and appeals by the applicant and not to waste valuable time and resources on this application. ?

The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

• The current application being presented was very different from the first iteration.
• The scale of the building had been substantially reduced, with the height now much lower than its neighbour to the left and equal to the neighbour on the right.
• The width had also been reduced to match the width of the buildings to the left.
• The gaps left between the buildings were a minimum of 5 metres.
• The building to the right was much wider and screened by a 65-meter row of protected trees.
• The rear projection had been reduced in depth significantly.
• The previous application had been approved by the inspector, and the building being considered was the same size as the approved scheme.
• The application proposed a car parking area to the rear, replicating the parking arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7